Jobs report is not good: it may be as low as 140,000 although

[Dad2three]

Job creation misses big in September

The unemployment rate has been declining steadily, but that has come in significant part due to the lowest labor force participation rate since the late 1970s. The participation rate plunged to 62.4 percent in September.

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.


The incredible shrinking labor force

 

[Dan Daly]

Job creation misses big in September

The unemployment rate has been declining steadily, but that has come in significant part due to the lowest labor force participation rate since the late 1970s. The participation rate plunged to 62.4 percent in September.

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.


The incredible shrinking labor force

That's nice...now take a risk and come down from your ivory tower and talk to those mere serfs you are so afraid of and find out the real story. I promise they won't hurt you....as long as you don't say something stupid and piss them off.

 

[bedowin62]

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

How do you figure? Who claims that it measures suffering? It measures exactly what it's supposed to....the percent of available labor in a specific month that is not being used. People who aren't trying to work cannot be hired. It's not "cruel" to not include them when discussing how many people could have been hired but weren't: it's common sense.

you're the kind of intellectual coward that wants to try to lecture people but curiously lose your intellectual curiosity when you dont seem to want to know why so many people, AS YOU ADMIT, "ARENT TRYING TO WORK". AND that being the case, and it IS the case; it makes my central point accurate, that obama's unemployment number IS A BIG LIE

thanks

 

[Dad2three]

THIS GUY:

LOST OVER 1+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS AS HE TOOK $5+ TRILLION IN SURPLUSES TO $1+ TRILLION DEFICITS


THIS GUY HAS SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM, THE SAME MONTH AS OBAMACARES PASSED, SEEN 13+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED, CUT THE DEFICTS BY 2/3RDS AND TAKEN UNEMPLOYMENT BELOW ANY POINT UNDER RONNIE RAYGUN

WHO HAS BEEN A FAILURE?

 

[bedowin62]

Job creation misses big in September

The unemployment rate has been declining steadily, but that has come in significant part due to the lowest labor force participation rate since the late 1970s. The participation rate plunged to 62.4 percent in September.

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.


The incredible shrinking labor force

once again, your charts, graphs and words lack specifics that would get to the central point. you have all kinds of percentages up there ^^^^ but when it come to the PERCENTAGE of declining Labor Market participation caused by retiring Baby Boomers IT IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND, AND INSTEAD SAYS "LARGELY DUE" TO retiring Baby boomers


LIKE I SAY......................................

idiots and hypocrites

 

[bedowin62]

we're heading into OBAMA YEAR EIGHT


and all you got is a pathetic poster that uses to race card to explain obama's failures??


wow

 

[Dan Daly]

 

[bedowin62]

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

How do you figure? Who claims that it measures suffering? It measures exactly what it's supposed to....the percent of available labor in a specific month that is not being used. People who aren't trying to work cannot be hired. It's not "cruel" to not include them when discussing how many people could have been hired but weren't: it's common sense.

obama isnt mentioning who hasnt been hired because they dont want to be leftard. he's bragging about the number of people who HAVE BEEN hired WITHOUT taking into account those who have dropped out of the Labor Market altogether and arent being counted. you just admitted they exist, now admit the unemployment number than isnt accurate at all; and when you do that YES you must admit, if you truly are a "caring" Progressive type, that it is cruel to leave LITERALLY MILLIONS out of your numbers, just for politics

 

[Dad2three]

Job creation misses big in September

The unemployment rate has been declining steadily, but that has come in significant part due to the lowest labor force participation rate since the late 1970s. The participation rate plunged to 62.4 percent in September.

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.


The incredible shrinking labor force

That's nice...now take a risk and come down from your ivory tower and talk to those mere serfs you are so afraid of and find out the real story. I promise they won't hurt you....as long as you don't say something stupid and piss them off.

What's your point? Those "job creators" having the lowest sustained tax "burden" since before Harding/Coolidge's great depression, aren't giving US a good return on investment???

 

[bedowin62]

it's impossible to get a brainwashed left-wing loser to be honest.

how can an idiot post a thousand charts and graphs up here saying all kinds of things; but upon inspection of the talking point that says the ENOURMOUS DECLINE IN LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION is supposedly due to retiring Baby Boomers, it offers NO NUMBERS, but just says "largely due"??????????????????????

 

[bedowin62]

Job creation misses big in September

The unemployment rate has been declining steadily, but that has come in significant part due to the lowest labor force participation rate since the late 1970s. The participation rate plunged to 62.4 percent in September.

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.


The incredible shrinking labor force

That's nice...now take a risk and come down from your ivory tower and talk to those mere serfs you are so afraid of and find out the real story. I promise they won't hurt you....as long as you don't say something stupid and piss them off.

What's your point? Those "job creators" having the lowest sustained tax "burden" since before Harding/Coolidge's great depression, aren't giving US a good return on investment???

crybaby rants about Harding And Coolidge might makes sense if it was still a hundred years ago.


but it isnt; and you are the idiots that call yourselves "forward-looking", yet all you can manage are idiotic comparisons to how things were A HUNDRED YEARS AGO


idiots and hypocrites

 

[Dad2three]

September 9, 2015

Bush lost private sector jobs over the course of his eight years (the Wall Street Journal declared it the “Worst Track Record On Record” on jobs), while Obama has created a net of nearly 9 million private sector jobs during his presidency, and more than 12 million if you start counting after the Great Recession Bush handed Obama technically ended in mid-2009.


Bush vs. Obama on the Economy, In 3 Simple Charts [UPDATED]

 

[rightwinger]

Only 140,000 jobs?

I blame the job creators. They are the ones we have entrusted to employ Americans

How about we remove the Reagan tax cuts until they start creating over 200,000 jobs a month again?

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN

of course Bush lost more jobs idiot; he had a GLOBAL RECESSION at the end of his term.

bush's numbers are real; obama's numbers LITERALLY DONT COUNT MILLIONS who arent even looking

you can argue over the reasons all day leftard. but obama's people not working or even looking include MILLIONS OF ABLE-BODIED, WORKING-AGE AMERICANS who USED to be participating in the labor market under bush


try again.............

 

[bedowin62]

Only 140,000 jobs?

I blame the job creators. They are the ones we have entrusted to employ Americans

How about we remove the Reagan tax cuts until they start creating over 200,000 jobs a month again?

yawn'

they are the same people responsible for creating the jobs you idiots and your Leader say HAVE been created



try again...........................................

 

[bedowin62]

how about we remove a few thousnd pages of regulations and LOWER their taxes instead of punishing them?
which model is more likely to work leftard???

 

[Dad2three]

Only 140,000 jobs?

I blame the job creators. They are the ones we have entrusted to employ Americans

How about we remove the Reagan tax cuts until they start creating over 200,000 jobs a month again?

I'd be satisfied to take it back to Ronnie Rayguns first 6 years rate, 50%. How could the US EVER create jobs with those socialist rates??

 

[rightwinger]

Only 140,000 jobs?

I blame the job creators. They are the ones we have entrusted to employ Americans

How about we remove the Reagan tax cuts until they start creating over 200,000 jobs a month again?

yawn'

they are the same people responsible for creating the jobs you idiots and your Leader say HAVE been created



try again...........................................

Why not pay for performance?

You create jobs....you get a low tax rate
You lay off or send jobs overseas.......you pay at a pre-Reagan rate

 

[pinqy]

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

How do you figure? Who claims that it measures suffering? It measures exactly what it's supposed to....the percent of available labor in a specific month that is not being used. People who aren't trying to work cannot be hired. It's not "cruel" to not include them when discussing how many people could have been hired but weren't: it's common sense.

you're the kind of intellectual coward that wants to try to lecture people but curiously lose your intellectual curiosity when you dont seem to want to know why so many people, AS YOU ADMIT, "ARENT TRYING TO WORK".

But I do know why. Most of them arent' trying to work becasue they don't want a job. Some are not looking because they are unable to work. Some had to stop looking due to personal reasons and haven't started looking again yet. Retirees, disabled, full time students, and stay home spouses account for the majority of people not trying to work.

But you're ignoring the point. In September, there were 13.2 million people who said they wanted a job. 7.6 million applied for jobs, had interviews, asked friends and family, sent out resumes, answered want ads, etc. 5.6 million did absolutely nothing from August to September that could possibley gotten them a job. In fact, 3.1 million haven't done anything at all in the last year to get a job...not one application or attempt.

So when measuring what percent of available labor was not used, do you want to include those who could not have been hired? Why?

So, if there were 13 million jobs available in August, how many people could have been hired?

 

[rightwinger]

how about we remove a few thousnd pages of regulations and LOWER their taxes instead of punishing them?
which model is more likely to work leftard???

Why should we lower taxes on job creators who are not creating jobs?

Lets give them an incentive